Search This Blog

Monday, June 6, 2011

Universities “seriously concerned” by death threats against climate scientists



Icecaps
Climate scientists have warned that global warming, which melts ice caps and causes sea-levels to rise, is a serious threat to the planet. Now the scientists have been threatened. Flickr, Gerald Simmons
The peak body for Australian universities is “seriously concerned” by revelations of death threats against top climate scientists, arguing that democracy depends on academics being able to conduct research in an environment that supports free intellectual inquiry.
The Canberra Times newspaper reported on Saturday that climate scientists from the Australian National University, the University of NSW, the University of Melbourne and other unnamed universities had been subjected to threats of violence, sexual assault or attacks on family members.
Some had upgraded security measures in their homes and workplaces after receiving abusive emails and death threats, the paper reported.
Dr Glenn Withers AO, CEO of university sector body Universities Australia, said the news was very worrying.
“Universities Australia is seriously concerned at the revelation of a campaign of threats made to climate scientists who are prominent in the public discussion of the climate change issues that are so important for Australia’s future,” said Dr Withers, who is also a former professor of Public Policy at the Australian National University.
“Four things must be done: the source of the threats should be determined and appropriate charges or treatment considered; the ongoing safety of the scientists must be assured by appropriate security arrangements; the threatening behaviour must be condemned widely by responsible political and community leaders; and, aggressive and confrontational public discourse that can feed such behaviour should be rejected by our leaders,” he said.
Firm action must be taken to end systematic and sustained harrassment, he said.
“It is mightily important that we do so. Free intellectual inquiry and informed and civil public debate are essential foundations of a strong democracy,” he said.
Climate scientists in the UK and the US have also been threatened. Some of the abusive emails called the scientists Nazis and urged them to “go gargle razor blades.”
Science magazine published an open letter in May last year signed by scores of scientists calling for an end to harrassment of climate scientists.
“Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence,” the letter said.
“We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”
Professor Steven Sherwood, Co-Director of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre (CcRC) and a colleague of one of the UNSW scientists who had been threatened, Andy Pitman, said he had not been harassed but that “I seem to be an exception around the CcRC.”
Those issuing the threats are motivated by fear, he said.
“I see this as a result of fear-mongering campaigns against action on climate change, telling people the sky will fall if we do anything. This builds fear and anger,” he said.
The NSW government’s whip in the upper house, Peter Phelps, last week used a speech to parliament on global warming to describe scientists as “some of the strongest supporters of totalitarian regimes in the last century.”
“At the heart of many scientists – but not all scientists – lies the heart of a totalitarian planner,” the Sydney Morning Herald reported him saying.

Threats may chill climate research in long run



Carbontax
Debate around climate science and proposed policy responses should be open and constructive, universities have said. AAP
Death threats against climate scientists may make researchers reluctant to engage in public debate or even turn research students off the study of climate change altogether, the head of the government agency that funds Australian research has warned.
The Canberra Times newspaper reported on Saturday that climate scientists from the Australian National University, the University of NSW, the University of Melbourne and other unnamed universities had been subjected to threats of violence, sexual assault or attacks on family members.
Some had upgraded security measures in their homes and workplaces after receiving abusive emails and death threats.
Professor Margaret Sheil, CEO of the Australian Research Council, said that the safety of the threatened researchers was the primary concern but warned of a possible chilling effect in the longer term.
“It may prevent or reduce the involvement of key scientists in the public debate to which they are making a vital contribution. In the longer term, it may affect the choices made by post-docs and research students in pursuing climate change science,” she said.
Climate researchers in the US and the UK have also been threatened, and Sciencemagazine published an open letter in May last year signed by scores of scientists calling for an end to harrassment of climate scientists.
Professor Sheil said she did not expect academic freedom to be impinged by employers because most Vice Chancellors and Chief Executives would be supporting their academics in the face of such threats.
“I think it’s important that the leaders of the institutions come out, as they are doing, in public support of their scientists working in the area of climate change and more generally in defence of science and the processes of peer review and scrutiny that underpin the integrity of science,” she said, adding that she had also been harassed over her public support of climate science research.
“I received a barrage of emails from those who promoting the opposite view,” she said.
Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) at UNSW, Professor Les Field, described the threats against scientists as “an absolute travesty” and called for academics to be allowed to present their data for debate in an open, constructive and professional fashion.
“The issue of climate science has become an emotive issue that has become entangled and confused with politics and with vested interests. I think that the science itself should be judged and debated on its merits and this must be decoupled from politics,” said Prof Field, whose university employs one of the scientists who had recently been threatened, UNSW’s Andy Pitman.
“Climate change has become an emotionally engaging issue. Firstly, it predicts changes for future generations and we all prick up our ears when there is concern for the well-being of our children and grandchildren. Secondly, climate change has been used as a justification for proposed new taxes to drive cleaner and greener industry, proposed lifestyle changes and significant changes to our industries and manufacturing practices,” he said, adding that such issues and their likely impact on the climate were worthy of public debate.
“The practice of intimidation, bullying and threats simply shouldn’t be tolerated. To the extent that this is illegal, it should be dealt with by the force of the law,” he said.
“We must stand up for the right of every researcher to put forward his or her views and have them debated, criticised and discussed in a public and professional forum.”
Dr Kevin Trenberth, head of analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado, received around 19 pages of abusive emails in the months following the publication of e-mails leaked from a top global climate research body in late 2009, an event that came to be known as Climategate.
Dr Trenberth said the abusive emails have continued to flow in.
“They occur episodically evidently in response to something highlighted on denier websites such as (the website run by climate change skeptic Marc Morano) or Watts Up with That.”
“The peak occurred after Climategate and through the Copenhagen meeting. The second peak occurred late 2010 into 2011 when I gave a paper at the American Meteorological Society meeting in January,” he said. “After it was posted, it was picked up on those sites and got a lot of attention.”
The abusive emails urge him to go back to New Zealand or describe efforts to ensure he does not receive any more research funding.
“Most are nonsensical: just sounding off. There is no attempt to really engage. They do not want you to answer questions or provide a rationale for anything. It is mindless. A few times I did try to engage by answering questions and a small subset of those were actually rational but most were not: true deniers,” he said.
“These are nearly all emails. However after Climategate in late 2009, there were protesters who tried to get onto NCAR property,” he said. “Security at NCAR was heightened for quite a while.”
Some of the abusive correspondence has religious overtones, said Dr Trenberth.
“Some has a values base that seems to relate to implications that something will have to be done by governments and there is a mindless opposition to government and also any implied international ‘interference’.”
Universities Australia Chair and Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Professor Glyn Davis AC, described the threats to climate scientists as “a fundamental attack upon intellectual inquiry”.
“To disagree with evidence or conclusions from academic research is part of any robust debate. To seek to intimidate scientists who reach unwelcome findings is an assault on the ideal of a free exchange of ideas. It undermines our democratic society,” he said.
“Serious public policy debate needs civil and informed discussion. Aggressive abuse and hate campaigns make no helpful contribution to a crucial policy debate. They simply seek to silence unwelcome voices,” he said.
“Fortunately, academics at Australian universities continue to refuse to be intimidated by the few who grasp neither the principles of academic freedom nor the urgent imperative of independent research.”

Economists' open letter calls for carbon price


Polluters
A carbon price woud disincentivise pollution, the economists' letter says. Flickr
An open letter signed by 13 of the country’s top economists and published in The Australiannewspaper has called for the speedy introduction of a price on carbon pollution, preferably by way of an emissions trading scheme.
Environmental group WWF paid for the placement of the advertisement, which was signed by Chris Caton, Chief Economist at BT Financial Group, Besa Deda, Chief Economist at St George, Saul Eslake, Director of the Productivity Growth Program at the Grattan Institute and Bill Evans, Chief Economist at Westpac.
Richard Gibbs, Chief Economist at Macquarie Bank Limited, Stephen Halmarick, the Chairman of Australian Business Economists and John Hewson, an economist and former leader of the Liberal party were also among the signatories.
“We are all of the view that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme is a necessary and desirable structural reform of the Australian economy, designed to change relative prices in a way that provides an effective incentive to consumers and producers to shift over time to more low carbon energy efficient patterns of consumption and production,” the letter said.
“As such, it should be broadly-based in its application and highly transparent in its implementation. It should not be approached in a politically opportunistic and haphazard manner.”
The letter made five main points:
  • A carbon price should apply across as many high carbon producing sectors of the economy as possible because concessions to one industry would put pressure on other sectors
  • The market should set the price of a carbon permit, and any price cap should be high and non-binding. A fixed price may be appropriate as a transitional arrangement but should default to an emissions trading scheme as early as possible.
  • Revenue raised from the price scheme should pay for compensation to low-income households, while aiming for budget neutrality in the long run.
  • A properly designed price mechanism will eventually encourage the development of new, cleaner technologies but new measures may be needed soon to incentivise clean tech and energy efficiency.
  • The price mechanism should be administered by an independent authority, similar to the Reserve Bank of Australia, to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability, and a clean market price.
Paul Brennan, Head of Economics at Citigroup Global Markets, Australia, said he signed the letter out of genuine concern about climate change.
“Global warming will have significant economic and social impacts and so we do need to take insurance out against those risks,” he said.
The economists stopped short of nominating a carbon price, but Brennan pointed out that government climate economics adviser, Ross Garnaut, has said it should start at between $20 and $30 a tonne, rather than the $10 per tonne that industry has called for.
“We have tried to bring it back to the underlying economic principles that should be guiding the debate,” he said, adding that he was not very optimistic that the message was getting through to the broader public.
“At the moment, I feel less than confident, partly because the debate has become so highly charged and emotional. I think the case for putting a price on carbon hasn’t been very well explained.”
Professor Sinclair Davidson, an economist at RMIT and a critic of the proposed carbon price, said the letter was premature.
“Obviously people can write letters and have opinions about this but it’s not at all clear to me that Australia should be adopting a carbon tax at the moment. It is not where the international community is at,” he said.
“I think to the extent the planet is warming and anthropogenic activity is the cause of that warming, what’s required is a coordinated global solution. Until there is a coordinated treaty that is internationally binding on all countries to do something about carbon and there is a consistent and coherent approach across all countries, Australia should not be moving ahead,” he said.
“It will simply impose costs on the domestic economy without actually providing any benefits that the program hopes to achieve.”